All things debatable

Sunday

Oct 14, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Robert Nemeth

Essentially, an election year in America has four seasons. There is the long Pre-Primary Season during which the media is engaged in endless speculation about which noted Democrat or Republican might run for office, and what their chances are for success. It is followed by the even longer Primary Season during which hopefuls wipe out each other via fierce infighting, fluctuating opinion polls and relentless media hype.

Right now we’re in the midst of the Debating Season that compels surviving candidates for the presidency and other offices to face each other in front of television cameras in a political demolition derby disguised as a thoughtful exchange of ideas. There’s also a brief Balloting Season when people actually go to the polls, unless they had already cast ballots as absentee or early voters. The seasons vary in length and often overlap.

With a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for the White House, and the close race of Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren for a coveted U.S. Senate seat, the current Debating Season has produced a great deal of turbulence. It remains to be seen what happens when the dust settles.

While a face-to-face encounter between contestants could help undecided voters to make up their minds, it is not clear just how much impact they have on the final outcome. Some debates lack substance and degenerate into political, or even de facto, beauty contests. Unless moderators maintain a firm grip on the process, candidates ignore the questions and deliver well-rehearsed rhetoric instead of meaningful answers.

In some cases, memorable debates could influence election results. It is widely believed that a sweaty Richard Nixon lost the 1960 election to a cool and handsome John F. Kennedy because he appeared nervous and with a five-o’-clock shadow during a debate. When Gerald Ford told moderator Max Frankel in 1976 that “There’s no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe,” that gaffe may have cost him the election. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan rolled over Jimmy Carter with his affable “There you go again” line during their encounter. Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey’s candidacy for governor went up in smoke in 2006 when three opponents — Deval Patrick, Christy Mihos and Grace Ross — ganged up on her during a debate.

Mitt Romney’s first debate with President Obama in Denver on Oct 3 might be remembered as another historic turning point. If he is elected in November, that event might have cleared his way to the White House. Mr. Romney appeared crisp, knowledgeable, persuasive and passionate. Mr. Obama seemed listless, hesitant, unprepared and at times outright incoherent. His unease can be explained by the fact that he was forced to defend something that is all but indefensible — his dismal record in office. Without a teleprompter, his much-touted oratory skills abandoned him.

The debate focused on economic issues, Mr. Romney’s strong suit, and he answered his doubters point by point, showing himself qualified to be president. He gave Mr. Obama a lesson in Economics 101, and the intrinsic relationship between jobs, productivity, taxes and prosperity. Rather than coming across as a heartless ideologue, he showed himself to be a caring individual with compassion for people in need. “We’re a nation that believes that we’re all children of the same God,” he said, “and we care for those that have difficulties and that have problems and challenges, those that are disabled.”

Rather than dismantling government and shredding all regulations and entitlements, as his critics claim he would do, Mr. Romney talked about improving government programs and making the system work better. He stressed his support for education and job training. He praised the value of collaboration: “We have to work on a collaborative basis, not because we’re going to compromise our principles but because there is common ground.” He told his audience that as governor of Massachusetts he met with Democratic Party leaders every week to discuss issues and agendas. One result of bipartisan cooperation was the state’s landmark health insurance law.

Members of mainstream liberal media — many of whom had already re-elected President Obama — were in deep post-debate agony, trying to explain what went wrong in Denver. Damage controllers listed the questions the president should have asked, but did not. There were the usual charges of flip-flopping. There was lament that Mr. Romney didn’t offer enough details about his plans. Well, how much detail can one provide within the two minutes allowed for statements?

Pundits and talking heads who predicted that Mr. Obama would make mincemeat of his challenger in a one-to-one encounter now say that he came out even, or that recent labor statistics showing improved employment figures negate the debate fiasco anyway. There were even suggestions that the president purposely threw the fight to lure his opponent into false security. Give us a break.

The Debating Season is far from over, and there could be more surprises down the road. Most thoughtful observers have made up their minds already. For those still undecided, more encounters could be helpful. But debates cannot alter an inescapable fact: Barack Obama ran for office on hope, promising change for the better.

By reasonable measures, he failed to deliver, making change in the White House well warranted.